long winded fool

Isn't this a possible (albeit unlikely) future scenario? Isn't it possible that someday (perhaps in the distant future) everyone will be intelligent enough to understand all languages and will be able to decipher every single metaphor and allegory contained in the bible, and thus get the same meaning from it? So are you saying you're an agnostic at the present time? Or is the unlikelihood of the scenario in your opinion enough to warrant weak atheism? If so, do you admit the distinct possibility that the existence of the god of the bible could be logically proven in the future? Not many atheists do.

Asha'man

Possible? Not without a miracle, and I don’t believe those happen either.

The problem with the Book isn’t the intelligence of its readers, it’s the fact that it simply isn’t a Holy Book, but just a work of men.

What type of cruel, unjust god would write a holy book that can’t be understood for 10,000 years, leaving billions of people to suffer in hell for eternity because of his sloppiness?

Maybe you missed my point: the existing bible simply doesn't qualify at all. In answer to the question "What would it take?", my answer is : an entirely new Book, with the qualities I listed originally.

If you took the time to look at my profile, you would see that I am both an atheist and an agnostic (using the formal definitions of each): I don’t believe in any gods, and have no knowledge of any either. I feel that the evidence is pretty strong in supporting my position, and am not likely to change my mind without some strong new evidence.

However, I did come to my current view based purely on the evidence. I didn’t want to lose my belief. I simply had no choice, given the evidence. If real evidence was ever actually provided, either by god or by man, I would have to reevaluate my position. I think if you look around carefully, you would find that this is exactly the same attitude many atheists take, and your perception of atheists is skewed.

As for the god of the bible ever being proved? Not a chance. I’ve read the bible.

tommyc

I think the point he made was that it would be a book available in one language (the language it was originally written in), but that anyone would be able to magically understand it even if they didn't speak it.

Marduk

" what would it take to make you believe in God”? Let me see if I can come up with a coherent answer"


I always thought belief in God was not important, but faith is.

Like the other thread "why doesn't God show himself"
Because then he would be as boring and annoying as George Bush or any other Earthly despot. It is the concept of faith that provides the strength, comfort, whatever, that people seek from religion. It is the Western version of meditation.
Didn't Jesus say something about having faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains? He was correct. Whether or not there is a super being of some kind external to the mind is irrelevant. It is this mental exercise that helps many people turn their lives around, overcome tragedy. provide courage to someone like Martin Luther King or Ghandi, or give the Egyptians a reason to build the Pyramids and civilization.

"The Hammer of the Gods
Drives our ships to new lands!
fight the horde, laughing and crying
Valhalla I am coming!"

long winded fool

Isn't this the same thing as saying that nothing could possibly make you believe in the god of the bible? This doesn't sound very agnostic to me, and it seems to contradict your statement that you would reevaluate your position if real evidence was put forth. You already know that the "real evidence" you require is patently impossible according to your own words. Therefore, you've "made up your mind" just like the fundamental theist, haven't you?

rdalin

Since I agree with Asha'man, I'll throw in my two cents. The various books comprising the bible are so contradictory and incoherent that the bible as a whole does not describe a god with a single set of easily identifiable characteristics. This is one main reason why there are so many arguments concerning this supposed deity's behavior. There is a clear evolution from a tribal god who is only one among many, as found in the first books of the Old Testament, to the single supreme deity in the New Testament. Which version of this god will we have evidence for? It's claimed by many Christians that god's nature is unchanging; god in the bible clearly and unmistakably changes, though, so proof that such a being exists is impossible. This isn't a matter of having a closed mind; rather, it's simple logic.

Asha'man has made his mind up, based on the available evidence. So have I. You seem to think that it's somehow wrong to reach a conclusion; that this makes us no different from fundamentalists. I will concede that I'd have to change my mind if real evidence was put forth, but I think it's essentially impossible that this will ever happen.

Richard

Jayjay

Assuming that the world doesn't look like it conforms to the christian world view very well, there are essentially two ways to "prove" christianity:

1) Demonstrate that I'm just wrong about things, or
2) Divine intervention

Christians have utterly failed in the former, so I guess that leaves us with option number two. The interesting question is, what would be the least intrusive intervention God could do to convince a person. I'd of course become christian if God just "zapped" me with the secret knowledge fundies supposedly have now. On the other hand, a vague spiritual experience would probably just open my mind to supernaturality, but not christianity in particular.

long winded fool

There's certainly nothing wrong with having reached a rational conclusion. It's just that, instead of listing the extraordinary things that would have to happen, (that can't happen) for you to believe in god, why not just say that nothing can make you believe in god? It's much more straightforward and honest a response. If that's your stance then I'm not attacking it. I'm just trying to make sure of what your stance is. Fundamentalists who believe that absolutely no ammount of evidence to the contrary could possibly shake their faith in their god are the same boat as you are. They're just at the other end. They don't use evidence as a basis for belief, so they have no "impossible standards" to list. I suppose they could say, "Only if I was someone else and not me is there a chance I might not believe in god." But this is silly. It's impossible, therefore they logically just say, "Nothing could make me not believe in god." They've made up their mind, just like the atheists. Fundamentalists just seem a little more honest about where they stand, even if they are hyppocritical and judgemental.

Jayjay

Fundies' inability to think about hypotheticals is not exactly honesty, in my humble opinion. It's ignorance.

rdalin

I did essentially say this. I can't conceive of anything that would make me believe in any god, and certainly not the judeo-christian one. Since I know of no logical reason that such proof is impossible to provide, however, I don't go quite that far. I do not expect to ever have cause to think about changing my position.

Edited to add: when you say that I'm the same as a fundamentalist, you're incorrect. Fundamentalists say that no amount of evidence would make them disbelieve; I say that without evidence (which I believe is essentially impossible to provide), I'll never believe. These are not the same.

Richard